Why does Donald Trump need immunity if he's innocent?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The answer is:  To prevent politically-motivated and frivolous prosecutions.

All Presidents need immunity.  Prosecuting Former Presidents could easily become the norm here, as it is in Failed States.  Don't think it couldn't.  How many people here would love to prosecute Bush 43 as a War Criminal?  If that happened, what President would have the stones to, say, arm Ukraine?

America needs its Presidents to have immunity, in order that we don't become more like Panama or Chile.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The answer is:  To prevent politically-motivated and frivolous prosecutions.

All Presidents need immunity.  Prosecuting Former Presidents could easily become the norm here, as it is in Failed States.  Don't think it couldn't.  How many people here would love to prosecute Bush 43 as a War Criminal?  If that happened, what President would have the stones to, say, arm Ukraine?

America needs its Presidents to have immunity, in order that we don't become more like Panama or Chile.

Would Richard Nixon's prosecution have been "politically-motivated" or "frivolous?"

Friviolous, yes.  The harm that could have come to the Nation is something that people did not appreciate now.  It is a feature of Banana Republics and Failed States, and it is a feature that those who are concerned about party, but not country, will not be able to leave alone if it becomes a norm.

Would prosecuting Bill Clinton for perjury have been "politically-motivated" or "frivolous"?  He did commit perjury, and he was disbarred for it. But I do not think that it would have benefitted the nation to prosecute either Nixon OR Clinton for what they did.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

In the MAGA cult's logic, Trump is unlawfully prosecuted by a politicized justice system. Therefore he needs immunity even though he's innocent in their view.

ALL of the prosecutions of Trump are founded on novel legal theories.  None of them are slam-dunk cases, and the State cases rely on extremely novel legal theories, to put it mildly. 

As for the Documents cases, why weren't Pence and Biden prosecuted?  Trump is the only one of those individuals who could have possibly justified having those legal documents at his residence.  The "He didn't cooperate with the National Archives!" argument is ridiculous, in that (A) Trump had the power to declassify documents whereas the others didn't, and (B) the fact that someone "cooperates" with "investigators" has nothing to do with whether or not a prosecutor files charges.  (It can be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the elements of a crime have been demonstrated.)